[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080326112845.GH17176@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:28:45 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: J??rn Engel <joern@...fs.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
jirislaby@...il.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, joe@...ches.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 109/148] include/asm-x86/serial.h: checkpatch cleanups
- formatting only
* Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:12:58PM +0100, J??rn Engel wrote:
> > CodingStyle has gone too far is this:
> > for (i=0; i<10; i++)
>
> it's a very good argument why we need a consistant style. The above is
> unreadable crap that hurts my eyes.
same for me.
and PLEASE, folks, even if you _dont_ find that line unreadable, and
even if you have full power and control over your own subsystem that you
maintain and can NAK cleanup patches at whim, still _PLEASE_ follow the
Linux coding style because it inconsistency hurts the eyes of a
substantial proportion of kernel developers. Other folks might have to
fix bugs in your code, other folks might want to reuse your code or you
might go into a different subsystem and give maintainership to someone
else, etc. etc. Consistent coding style is one of the few concepts that
only has advantages and no disadvantages at all.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists